1. health and fitness
2. disorders

BAOJ Neurology
BAOJ Neuro 002
Quantitative Electroencephalogram Assessment of Expressive Aphasia
Paul Foster S, 2Patti Kelly Harrison, 3John Williamson B, 2Ransom Campbell W, 2David Harrison W
1
Department of Psychology, Middle Tennessee State University, USA.
1
Department of Psychology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, USA.
2
Department of Neurology, University of Florida, USA.
3
Abstract
Research has indicated that expressive aphasia results from left frontal
lobe dysfunction, whereas expressive aprosodia has resulted from
right frontal lobe dysfunction. The neuroanatomical localization of
nonfluent aphasia has been investigated using numerous different
neuroimaging procedures, such as computerized tomography,
magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography, and
measures of regional cerebral blood flow. However, investigations
using quantitative electroencephalography (QEEG) have only
rarely been reported. The present investigation reports the case
of an individual dually diagnosed with nonfluent aphasia and
dysprosodia for whom standardized testing and syndrome analysis
had been conducted. The results from this neuropsychological
evaluation were then used to generate an a priori hypothesis of
diffuse bilateral frontal lobe dysfunction. This hypothesis was
then testing using QEEG. The results supported the impression of
bilateral frontal lobe dysfunction. It was also found that increasing
symptom severity correlated with increasing levels of brain
dysfunction.
Keywords: Aphasia; Aprosodia; Quantitative Electroencephalography; QEEG; Expressive Speech; Frontal Lobe; Brain Asymmetry;
Laterality; Speech; Language.
Quantitative Electroencephalogram Assessment of
Expressive Aphasia
Aphasia refers to a class of neuropsychological disorders that
involve the loss or impairment of language as a result of brain
damage [2]. Aphasia may result from many different types of brain
insults that produce lesions, such as vascular disorders, trauma,
neoplasms, and infections [5]. However, the neuroanatomical
location of the insult, rather than the etiology of the insult, is
the crucial factor in determining aphasic symptomatology [5].
Indeed, the neuroanatomical site of the brain pathology and the
associated syndrome is the distinguishing factor for the many
different classifications of aphasia that exist. Broadly speaking,
perisylvian aphasias refer to those classifications of aphasia that
result from brain pathology located within the immediate vicinity
of the Sylvian fissure. Conversely, aphasias that result from brain
pathology that is not within the immediate vicinity of the sylvian
fissure are referred to as extrasylvian or transcortical aphasias [4,
5]. The perisylvian aphasias may be further classified as to whether
they are fluent (Wernicke’s) or nonfluent (Broca’s). Fluent aphasia
involves impairment in auditory verbal comprehension and the
repetition of spoken language. Additionally, the fluent speech may
present as odd in nature or completely meaningless [5, 9, 16].
As an expressive speech deficit, nonfluent aphasia is typically
associated with sparse verbal output, the use of short sentences, and
many intervening pauses. Speech, in addition to being nonfluent,
may be poorly articulated and produced with considerable effort.
Unlike fluent aphasia, however, the comprehension of speech is
typically intact [4, 5, 9, 6, 24]. Nonfluent aphasia also has resulted in
the appearance of stuttering [5, 30]. Furthermore, individuals with
nonfluent aphasia may exhibit mild aprosodia, or alterations in
the rhythm, inflection, melody, and pitch of their speech [5, 7, 33].
Although discrepant findings concerning the neuroanatomical
location of nonfluent aphasia may be found [3, 10], the vast majority
of research implicates frontal lobe dysfunction in producing
nonfluent aphasia [1, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 17, 19, 27, 29, 13]. More
specifically, nonfluent aphasia is associated with dysfunction within
the opercular portion of the third transverse frontal convolution,
or Brodman’s area 44 [2, 8, 24]. Lesions producing nonfluent
aphasia may also involve the lower portion of the motor strip or
other cortical areas either anterior or superior to Brodman’s area 44
[8]. Consistent with the neuroanatomical locations involved with
nonfluent aphasia, stuttering has also been found to result from
lesions within the left frontal lobe [23, 31, 32]. Right hemisphere
dysfunction, in contrast, has been implicated in other speech
disorders [22], particularly with the dysprosodic aspect of speech [33].
The finding that nonfluent aphasia and aprosodia result from left
*Corresponding author: Harrison DW, Department of Psychology,
Behavioral Neuroscience Laboratory, Virginia Polytechnic Institute,
E-mail: dwh@vt.edu
Article Type: Research
Sub Date: March 10, 2015
Acc Date: March 24, 2015
Pub Date: March 26, 2015
Citation: Paul Foster S, Patti Kelly Harrison, John Williamson B,
Ransom Campbell W and David Harrison W (2015) Quantitative
Electroencephalogram Assessment of Expressive Aphasia. BAOJ Neuro
002.
Copyright: © 2015 Harrison DW, et al. This is an open-access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction
in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation: Paul Foster S, Patti Kelly Harrison, John Williamson B, Ransom Campbell W and David Harrison W (2015) Quantitative Electroencephalogram 1
Assessment of Expressive Aphasia. BAOJ Neuro 002.
BAOJ Neurology
BAOJ Neuro 002
and right frontal lobe lesions, respectively, has received support
from various neuroimaging procedures [5]. Specifically, the
neuroimaging procedures that have implicated the frontal lobes in
aphasia and aprosodia have included computerized tomography
[3, 10, 18, 19, 27], positron emission tomography [12], magnetic
resonance imaging [1, 17, 29] and measures of regional cerebral
blood flow [21,26]. However, a review of the relevant literature
indicated that quantitative electroencephalography (QEEG) has
not been widely utilized to investigate the neuroanatomical basis
of nonfluent aphasia [11].
The use of QEEG as an investigative tool is supported given that this
measure has been validated [11] and is certainly more convenient and
more efficient that most other neuroimaging methods. Quantitative
electroencephalography provides researchers and clinicians with
an effective and flexible neuropsychological assessment tool that
enables interhemispheric comparisons in patients with suspected
cerebral dysfunction [25]. Additionally, QEEG permits statistical
analyses of comparisons among electrode sites within a single
individual. Using a within subjects design affords the QEEG a
high level of sensitivity to the patient’s unique premorbid level of
functioning. Furthermore, QEEG permits the investigator to test
the a priori hypotheses of cerebral dysfunction that result from
neuropsychological assessment [25]. Hence, QEEG may be used
as a means of confirming the suspected neuroanatomical locations
of cerebral dysfunction. Moreover, QEEG may be useful in the
confirmation of “functional lesions” where distinct anatomical
anomalies are not apparent from gross imaging techniques (e.g. CTScan), but where reliable metabolic and electrical changes are present.
The present investigation concerns the neuropsychological
evaluation of an individual dually diagnosed with nonfluent
dysphasia and dysprosodia in which QEEG was utilized as a
neuropsychological procedure to provide for convergent validation
of suspected cerebral dysfunction.
Method
Case History
The patient was a right handed 29 year old Caucasian male who
graduated from high school and who also attended college for
half of one semester. The patient reported that he had never been
hospitalized for either emotional or medical problems. He had no
current medical problems and denied any history of head trauma.
The patient’s mother reported that he experienced some type of
seizure at approximately the age of one and a half years. She was
unable to provide details concerning the seizure. The seizure had
ceased upon arrival at the hospital and was an isolated incident.
Family medical history was remarkable for the mother stuttering
mildly on an occasional basis. Additionally, the patient’s mother
indicated that his great aunt suffered from some type of palsy and
also may have had Huntington’s chorea. However, she was unable
to provide more specific details. The patient denied illicit drug use,
but reported drinking alcohol occasionally on a social basis. The
patient was referred for a neuropsychological evaluation due to
problems with stuttering. Consultation with the parents indicated
that the patient had stuttered for his entire life. An ebb and flow
pattern to stuttering was reported by both the patient and his father.
Essentially, it was reported that the patient’s stuttering became
more severe whenever he experienced anxiety or stress. He had
previously received treatment for his stuttering, but he indicated
that this treatment was unsuccessful.
Procedure
Standardized Testing: To obtain an indication of the patient’s
memory functioning, the Denman Neuropsychology Memory
Scale (Sidney Denman, 1984) was administered, which consists of
a collection of well established memory subtests. Specifically, the
administration of this scale includes the Verbal Memory subtests
of Immediate Recall of a Story, Paired Associate Learning, Memory
for Digits, Remote Verbal Information, Delayed Paired Associates,
and Delayed Recall of a Story. Additionally, the scale also includes
the Nonverbal Memory subtests of Immediate Recall of a Figure,
Memory for Human Faces, Remote Verbal Information, and
Delayed Recall of a Figure. However, it should be noted that the
Musical Tones and Melodies subtest was not administered due to
equipment malfunction. Thus, the Nonverbal and the Full Scale
Memory Quotients were calculated using the short form version
of this testing instrument. The results of this test yielded Scaled
Scores of 6 and 8 on the Remote Verbal Information and Remote
Nonverbal Information subtests, respectively. Further, the patient
obtained a Verbal Memory Quotient of 48, a Nonverbal Memory
Quotient of 68, and a Full Scale Memory Quotient of 43. Review
of the results from the Denman Neuropsychology Memory Scale
indicated that the Verbal Memory Quotient was significantly (p <
.001) lower than the Nonverbal Memory Quotient. Profile analysis
also indicated that the patient possessed significant relative
strengths with the Remote Verbal and Nonverbal Information as
well as the Memory for Digits subtests.
Syndrome Analysis: The visual screening revealed impairment
in visual smooth pursuit with pursuit within the right hemispace.
Tactile startle to confrontation was heightened on confrontation at
the right hemibody. Bilateral Rapid Alternating Movements were
effortful and poorly coordinated. Grip strength was measured at
37kg at the left and 31kg at the right hand. The Dynamometer
Perseveration Test indicated perseveration in grip strength at both
hands. Specifically, when asked to grip the hand dynamometer “half
as hard,” his grip strength measured 33kg at the left and 25kg at the
right hand. Passive Range of Motion yielded increased flexor and
extensor tone at both arms concurrent with speech. Lingual praxis
Citation: Paul Foster S, Patti Kelly Harrison, John Williamson B, Ransom Campbell W and David Harrison W (2015) Quantitative Electroencephalogram 2
Assessment of Expressive Aphasia. BAOJ Neuro 002.
BAOJ Neurology
BAOJ Neuro 002
was remarkable for the tongue extending to the left. Facial affect
expression to confrontation revealed decreased facial expression
over the frontalis muscles. Ambulatory gait revealed slightly bilateral
adduction of the feet and forward postural tilt. Rhomberg’s test
revealed forward drift with posture also shifted about the neuraxis
to the right. He exhibited constructional and organizational deficits
during the Draw a House and Draw a Clock tests. Behavioral speed
and sequencing was investigated using the Trail Making Test Parts
A and B. Performance on this test was impaired, with completion of
Part B requiring 126 seconds. His performance on this test was also
quite perseverative in that several lines were drawn between each of
the numbers and letters. He was also noted to be nonfluent during
the Controlled Oral Word Association Test, generating 11 words
beginning with the letter F, 6 words beginning with A, and 9 words
beginning with the letter S, with the examiner recording responses.
However, there were 7 perseverative errors with words beginning
with the letter S. Performance on the Ruff Figural Fluency test
was also in the impaired range. Specifically, he obtained an error
ratio of .0476, generating 21 unique designs and 1 perseverative
error, placing him in the 1.1 percentile. Evaluation of propositional
speech was notable for diminished fluency to confrontation and in
conversation as well as articulation errors, perseverative phonemes,
and phonemic paraphasic errors. The patient was also noted to
stutter severely throughout the evaluation. Additionally, his speech
was ballistic with rapid, poorly regulated initiation.
Based on the findings from the standardized testing and syndrome
analysis it was hypothesized that the patient suffered from diffuse
bilateral frontal lobe dysfunction.
Quantitative Electroencephalogram: The QEEG was conducted
following the completion of standardized testing and the syndrome
analysis to provide a third assessment protocol to contribute to
convergent validation of cerebral dysfunction. The QEEG served
as a confirmatory tool to test the a priori hypothesis of diffuse
bilateral frontal lobe dysfunction. Specifically, it was hypothesized
that high delta (2.0 – 4.0Hz) and theta (5.0 – 7.0Hz) magnitude
(µV) values would be significantly increased at the frontal electrode
sites as compared to the more posterior sites of the brain. Also,
since aphasia is typically associated with left frontal dysfunction
and dysprosodia with right frontal lobe dysfunction, it was
hypothesized that heightened delta and theta values would exist
across the left and the right frontal lobes. Further, the existence
of a positive relationship was expected between the severity of
dysfunction in the frontal lobes and the severity of the patient’s
stuttering. More specifically, it was hypothesized that significant
positive correlations would be found between the severity of
the patient’s stuttering and changes in both high delta and theta
magnitude values at the frontal electrode sites.
Quantitative electroencephalography was measured using a
Neurosearch-24 (Lexicor Medical Technology). The patient was
fitted for a lycra electrode cap containing 19 electrodes arranged
according to the International 10/20 System. QEEG was measured
using linked ear references. The impedances for all electrodes were
less than 10kΩ, and in most instances less than 7kΩ. A sampling
rate of 256Hz was used and frequencies below 2Hz were eliminated
by a high pass filter. The EEG bandwidths analyzed included high
delta (2.0 – 4.0Hz) and theta (5.0 – 7.0Hz).
Subsequent to placement of the lycra electrode cap and testing
the impedence levels of the electrodes the patient was instructed
to close his eyes and relax while seated in a comfortably padded
reclining chair in a near supine position. The patient was allowed
to relax for 5 minutes, after which time a baseline measurement of
QEEG was obtained. The patient was then exposed to six different
conditions requiring him to speak. Briefly, the patient was instructed
to solve simple math problems, to describe his job, to recite the
alphabet, to count forward, to describe his leisure activities, and
to count backwards from 100 by 3. The patient was allowed to
relax for at least one minute between each of these conditions. The
level of severity of his stuttering during each of these conditions
was assessed by the principle investigator. Essentially, the severity
of stuttering was rated using a 10 point Likert type scale with 0
representing the absence of stuttering and 10 representing severe
stuttering. A total of 60 one second epochs were recorded for each
of these conditions, including the baseline condition. Each epoch
was individually artifacted to remove eye movement and muscle
artifacts.
Results
For purposes of conducting all analyses, magnitude values are
represented in µV. High delta and theta magnitude values obtained
during the eyes closed baseline condition were noted to be higher at
the frontal poles (FP1 and FP2) as compared to the more posterior
regions of the same hemisphere (F7, F3, T3, C3, T5, P3, O1 and
F8, F4, T4, C4, T6, P4, O2). High delta magnitude values at the F7
and F3 electrode sites were higher than the T3 and T5 electrode
sites and were also higher at the F4 electrode site as compared to
the T4 and T6 electrode sites. Similarly, theta magnitude values at
the F3 electrode site were higher than the T3 and T5 electrode sites
and were also higher at the F4 electrode site as compared to the T4
and T6 electrode sites. The magnitude values for high delta across
the left and right cerebral hemispheres are displayed in Figures 1
and 2.
Citation: Paul Foster S, Patti Kelly Harrison, John Williamson B, Ransom Campbell W and David Harrison W (2015) Quantitative Electroencephalogram 3
Assessment of Expressive Aphasia. BAOJ Neuro 002.
BAOJ Neurology
BAOJ Neuro 002
Consult Table 1 for the means and standard deviations of the high
delta and theta magnitude values for the anterior and posterior
regions for the baseline condition.
Left Frontal Delta 2 Magnitude
Quiet vs. Speech
14
M
I
C
R
O
V
O
L
T
12
10
8
F3
F7
6
4
2
0
QUIET
SPEECH
Figure 1. High Delta Magnitude Values Across the Left Frontal
Region During Quiet and Expressed Speech Conditions.
Left & Right Frontal Delta 2 Magnitude
Quiet vs. Speech
M
I
C
R
O
V
O
L
T
14
12
10
8
Left
Right
6
4
2
0
F3 vs F4 F7 vs F8
F3 vs F4 F7 vs F8
QUIET
SPEECH
Figure 2. Theta Magnitude Values Across the Left and Right
Cerebral Hemispheres for the Eyes Closed Baseline Condition.
Statistical analyses were conducted for purposes of comparing
the average high delta and theta magnitude values for the anterior
regions (FP1, FP2, F7, F8, F3, F4) versus the posterior regions of the
brain (T3, T5, P3, T4, T6, P4). The central (C3, C4) and occipital
(O1, O2) sites were excluded from these analyses to keep the group
sizes equal. To conduct statistical analyses each electrode site was
considered as a separate case. The results of a oneway ANOVA
indicated that high delta magnitude values were significantly
greater at the anterior regions as compared to the posterior regions
of the brain, F(1,10) = 6.57, p < .05. However, no significant
differences in theta magnitude values were found between the
anterior and posterior regions of the brain, F(1, 10) = 3.29, p = ns.
The hypothesis of diffuse bilateral frontal lobe dysfunction was
tested by analyzing the high delta and theta magnitude values
obtained from the condition in which the patient exhibited the most
severe level of stuttering, namely, the condition in which he was
instructed to describe his current job. The findings were consistent
with those obtained from the baseline condition. Specifically, the
high delta and theta magnitude values obtained for the speaking
condition were higher at the frontal poles (FP1 and FP2) than at
all other more posterior electrode sites (F7, F3, T3, T5, C3, P3, O1
and F8, F4, T4, T6, C4, P4, O2). Furthermore, high delta and theta
magnitude values were higher at the F7 and F3 electrode sites than
at all the more posterior electrode sites and was also higher at the
F8 and F4 electrode sites as compared to all more posterior sites.
Statistical analyses were performed with the high delta and theta
magnitude values to determine whether significant differences
existed in magnitude between the anterior (FP1, FP2, F7, F8, F3,
F4) and the posterior (T3, T5, P3, T4, T6, P4) regions of the brain.
These analyses were conducted in the same manner as described
previously. The results of a oneway ANOVA indicated that both
high delta and theta magnitude values were significant greater at
the anterior regions of the brain than at the posterior regions, F(1,
10) = 8.92, p = .05 and F(1, 10) = 11.60, p < .01, respectively. Consult
Table 1 for the means and standard deviations of the high delta and
theta magnitude values for the anterior and posterior regions for
the speaking condition.
Comparisons among the left and right frontal lobes were made by
examining the theta and high delta magnitude values for the left
frontal lobe (FP1, F3, F7) and the right frontal lobe (FP2, F4, and F8)
during the baseline and the speaking conditions. As can be seen in
Figure 2, the high delta magnitude values between homologous sites
in the left and right frontal lobes differ by no more than .2 µV in the
baseline condition. Similarly, the theta magnitude values differ by
no more than .7 µV in the baseline condition. However, differences
between homologous sites within the left and right frontal lobes
do emerge in the speaking condition. Specifically, the high delta
magnitude value of the FP2 (25.6 µV) electrode site was higher
than that of the FP1 (22.3 µV) electrode site. This same pattern
was also found in comparing the theta magnitude values for these
same electrode sites (FP2 being 21.7 µV and FP1 being 19.8 µV).
Correlational analyses were conducted to determine the existence of
a positive relationship between severity of frontal lobe dysfunction
and severity of stuttering. For purposes of examining this relationship,
comparisons were made at the FP1 and FP2 electrode sites as
these sites were associated with the greatest level of dysfunction
for both the speaking and baseline conditions (see above).
Citation: Paul Foster S, Patti Kelly Harrison, John Williamson B, Ransom Campbell W and David Harrison W (2015) Quantitative Electroencephalogram 4
Assessment of Expressive Aphasia. BAOJ Neuro 002.
BAOJ Neurology
BAOJ Neuro 002
Condition
Region
Hz
M
SD
High Delta
7.05
1.08
Anterior
Baseline
Theta
9.38
1.47
High Delta
5.52
.78
Theta
7.80
1.29
High Delta
16.5
5.36
Speaking
Theta
15.73
3.64
High Delta
9.27
.75
Theta
9.85
1.30
Posterior
Anterior
Posterior
Table 1: Means and Standard Deviations for High Delta and Theta Magnitude Values for the Anterior and Posterior
Regions During the Baseline and Speaking Conditions
Note. Values are represented in µV.
Condition
Rating
1
Solving simple math problems.
2
2
Job description.
10
3
Recite the alphabet.
0
4
Counting forward.
0
5
Describe leisure activities.
8
6
Counting backward.
5
Table 2: Stuttering Severity Ratings for Each of the Speaking Conditions
To conduct correlational analyses changes in high delta magnitude
for each speaking condition were recorded during the eyes closed
baseline condition. Correlational analyses were then conducted
between the stuttering severity rating scores and the changes in
high delta magnitude. The mean severity rating across all speaking
conditions was 4.17 (SD = 4.22). Table 2 presents the stuttering
severity rating for each speaking condition.
Correlational analyses indicated significant positive correlations
between changes in high delta magnitude values and stuttering
severity rating scores for both the FP1 (r = .95, p < .01) and the FP2
(r = .95, p < .01) electrode sites.
Discussion
The a priori hypothesis of diffuse bilateral frontal lobe dysfunction
was supported by the results of the present investigation.
Visual inspection of the high delta and theta magnitude values
for both the baseline and speaking conditions indicated that the
frontal poles were associated with higher magnitude values for
these frequencies than the more posterior electrode sites of the
same hemisphere. This conclusion was substantiated by conducting
statistical analyses, which yielded increased high delta magnitude
values over the anterior regions as compared to the posterior
regions of the brain. Given that the presence of marked delta
activity in the waking state is associated with the presence of brain
dysfunction [15, 20], the hypothesis of diffuse bilateral frontal lobe
dysfunction in the present case is substantiated. Furthermore,
although theta magnitude values were not significantly different
between the anterior and posterior regions of the brain for the
baseline condition, significant differences between the anterior
and posterior regions were found for the speaking condition. Equal
levels of dysfunction were also found to exist between almost all
homologous sites within the left and right frontal lobes in both
Citation: Paul Foster S, Patti Kelly Harrison, John Williamson B, Ransom Campbell W and David Harrison W (2015) Quantitative Electroencephalogram 5
Assessment of Expressive Aphasia. BAOJ Neuro 002.
BAOJ Neurology
BAOJ Neuro 002
the baseline and speaking conditions, as hypothesized. However,
increased slowing was noted to exist over the right frontal pole, as
compared to the left frontal pole, in the speaking condition. Thus,
the results of the present investigation provide further support for
the association of frontal lobe dysfunction with nonfluent aphasia
and dysprosodia.
Whereas previous investigations have found left frontal lobe
dysfunction using neuroimaging procedures such as computerized
tomography [3, 10, 18, 19, 27], magnetic resonance imaging [1, 17,
29], positron emission tomography [12] and measures of regional
cerebral blood flow [21, 26], the present investigation utilized
quantitative electroencephalography. Hence, the present findings
not only support previous findings concerning the neuroanatomical
correlates of nonfluent aphasia, but also support the use of QEEG
as a diagnostic tool. The combination of standardized testing,
syndrome analysis, and QEEG provides clinicians and researchers
with a powerful means of investigating the relationship between
the brain and behavior. This procedure also conforms closely to
the scientific method, since the QEEG is used to test the a priori
hypotheses resulting from analysis of the data from standardized
testing and syndrome analysis. Therefore, converging validation
of localized cerebral dysfunction may result from this tripartite
assessment approach. Indeed, predicting the neuroanatomical
location of brain dysfunction and testing the prediction using QEEG
affords researchers and clinicians great confidence in their findings.
Additionally, QEEG is a noninvasive procedure and the equipment
needed is relatively inexpensive and requires little physical space.
Thus, the use of QEEG as a tool for confirming a priori hypotheses
regarding brain dysfunction should be particularly appealing to
researchers and clinicians.
The present investigation found a positive relationship between
increasing symptom severity and increasing levels of brain
dysfunction. Based on these findings it may be inferred that larger
lesions may yield more severe symptomatology. Although some
researchers have discussed the existence of a relationship between
symptom severity and brain activity [28], more research appears
warranted. Additionally, the present findings carry implications for
rehabilitation with patients suffering from brain injuries or cerebral
lesions resulting from other insults. The existence of a positive
relationship between symptom severity and brain dysfunction
may indicate that decreasing severity of symptoms may result
in decreasing brain dysfunction. Thus, QEEG may be used as a
clinical outcome measure for clinicians conducting therapy for
patients. It is the hope of the present authors that this investigation
will stimulate further research concerning the relationship between
symptom severity and severity of brain dysfunction and how this
relationship may be used as a measure of treatment outcome. Also,
it is hoped that this investigation stimulates further research using
QEEG as a diagnostic tool.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Abe K, Ukita H and Yanagihara T. (1997) Imaging in primary
progressive aphasia. Neuroradiology: 39(8), 556-559.
Agranowitz A, McKeown MR and Nielsen JM. (1975) Aphasia
handbook for adults and children. Springfield, IL: Charles C
Thomas.
Basso A, Lecours AR, Moraschini S and Vanier M. (1985)
Anatomoclinical correlations of the aphasias as defined through
computerized tomography: Exceptions. Brain Lang: 26(2), 201229.
Benson DF (1993) Aphasia. In KM Heilman and E Valenstein
(Eds.), Clinical neuropsychology. (3rd ed., pp. 17-36). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Benson DF and Ardila A (1996) Aphasia: A clinical perspective.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Black SE. (1996) Focal cortical atrophy syndromes. Brain and
Language: 31(2), 188-229.
Blumstein S (1981) Phonological aspects of aphasia. In:
MT Sarno (Ed.), Acquired aphasia (pp. 129-151). New York:
Academic Press.
Damasio D (1981a) Cerebral localization of the aphasias. In M. T.
Sarno (Ed.), Acquired aphasia (pp. 27-50). New York: Academic
Press.
Damasio A (1981b) The nature of aphasia: Signs and syndromes.
In M. T. Sarno (Ed.), Acquired aphasia (pp. 51-65). New York:
Academic Press.
Ferro J M and Madureira S. (1997) Aphasia type, age and cerebral
infarct localisation. Journal of Neurology: 244(8), 505-509.
Finitzo T, Pool KD and Chapman SB. (1991) Quantitative
electroencephalography and anatomoclinical principles of
aphasia: A validation study. Ann N Y Acad Sci: 620, 57-72.
Grossman M, Mickanin J, Onishi K, Hughes E, D’Esposito M,
Ding XS, Alavi A and Reivich M. (1996) Progressive nonfluent
aphasia: Language, cognitive, and PET measures contrasted
with probable Alzheimer’s Disease. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 8, 135-154.
Harrison D W (2015) Brain Asymmetry and Neural Systems:
Foundations in Clinical Neuroscience and Neuropsychology.
Springer Publishing Company (Neuroscience), New York, NY.
Hodges JR and Patterson K. (1996) Nonfluent progressive aphasia
and semantic dementia: A comparative neuropsychological
study. J Int Neuropsychol Soc: 2(6), 511-524.
Hugdahl K (1995) Psychophysiology: The mind-body perspective.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Kolb B & Whishaw I Q (1996) Fundamentals of human
neuropsychology (4th ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman and
Company.
Kreisler A, Godefroy O, Delmaire C, Debachy B, Leclercq M,
Pruvo JP and Leys D. (2000) The anatomy of aphasia revisited.
Neurology: 54(5), 1117-1123.
Ludlow CL, Rosenberg J, Fair C, Buck D, Schesselman S and
Salazar A. (1986) Brain lesions associated with nonfluent
aphasia fifteen years following penetrating head injury. Brain:
109, 55-80.
Mazzocchi F and Vignolo LA. (1979) Localisation of lesions in
aphasia: Clinical-CT scan correlations in stroke patients. Cortex:
15(4), 627-653.
Citation: Paul Foster S, Patti Kelly Harrison, John Williamson B, Ransom Campbell W and David Harrison W (2015) Quantitative Electroencephalogram 6
Assessment of Expressive Aphasia. BAOJ Neuro 002.
BAOJ Neurology
BAOJ Neuro 002
20. Misulis KE (1997) Essentials of clinical neurophysiology (2nd
ed.). Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
21. Mlcoch AG, Bushnell DL, Gupta S and Milo TJ. (1994) Speech
fluency in aphasia. Regional cerebral blood flow correlates
with recovery using single-photon emission tomography. J
Neuroimaging: 4(1), 6-10.
22. Moore WH. (1984) The role of right hemisphere information
processing strategies in language recovery in aphasia: An
electroencephalographic investigation of hemispheric alpha
asymmetries in normal and aphasic subjects. Cortex: 20(2),
193-205.
23. Mouradian MS, Paslawski T and Shuaib A. (2000) Return of
stuttering after stroke. Brain Lang: 73(1), 120-123.
24. Reinvang I (1985). Aphasia and brain organization. New York:
Plenum Press.
25. Shenal BV, Rhodes RD, Moore TM, Higgins DA and Harrison
DW. (2001) Quantitative electroencephalography (QEEG) and
neuropsychological syndrome analysis. Neuropsychol Rev:
11(1), 31-44.
26. Soh K, Larsen B, Skinhoj E and Lassen NA. (1978) Regional
cerebral blood flow in aphasia. Arch Neuro: 35(10), 625-632.
27. Taubner RW, Raymer AM and Heilman KM. (1999) Frontalopercular aphasia Brain Lang: 70(2), 240-261.
28. Tucker DM. (1981) Lateral brain function, emotion, and
conceptualization. Psychol Bull: 89(1), 19-46.
29. Turner RS, Kenyon LC, Trojanowski JQ, Gonatas N and Grossman
M. (1996) Clinical, neuroimaging, and pathologic features of
progressive nonfluent aphasia. Ann Neurol: 39(2), 166-173.
30. Van Riper C (1971) The nature of stuttering. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
31. Webster WG. (1986) Neuropsychological models of stuttering II:
Interhemispheric interference. Neuropsychologia: 24(5), 737741.
32. Webster WG. (1988) Neural mechanisms underlying stuttering:
Evidence from bimanual handwriting performance. Brain Lang:
33(2), 226-244.
33. Wingate ME (1988) The structure of stuttering: A psycholinguistic
analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Citation: Paul Foster S, Patti Kelly Harrison, John Williamson B, Ransom Campbell W and David Harrison W (2015) Quantitative Electroencephalogram 7
Assessment of Expressive Aphasia. BAOJ Neuro 002.